Seriously, why isn't "my expectations are wrong" a more likely answer than "an enormously complicated hoax requiring thousands of people and technology still not achievable was perpetrated"?

And, in this case, as all images of the lunar surface from all missions have consistent regolith architecture, a hoax that involves images collected by space agencies from three countries, two of which were hostile to each other for much of the time, over the past 55 years. In addition to the six Apollo missions, 18 robotic missions, four of which are still active, and with a nineteenth soon to land.

Atleast someone here has attempted to use some science to explain things.

No, you don't have the high moral ground here. In your last thread you were given vast amounts of correct science that disputed your theories, as well as detailed explanations from your own documentation about how you were wrong. Instead of admitting you were wrong -- or at least that you didn't know what you were talking about -- you continued to foist your own ignorant opinion. When you were finally cornered, you ran away. No, you were not "busy with work." You came back to the forum several times after your last post, ostensibly to read the progress of the thread. I say you were instead confronted with facts that you couldn't address, so you ran away. You can prove that conclusion wrong at any time by taking up the subjects you left behind when you were allegedly too busy to deal with them. Clearly you're not longer busy.

Here's the thing: your critics will feel it less a waste of their time if you demonstrate that you are amenable to fact. If you're just going to keep jerking people around like you did before, you don't get to assign moral values to the responses you get.

Quote

Having said that, angle of repose issues really are not applicable to this topic.

And you say this from your vast experience in particulate mechanics? You have already proven yourself willing simply to make up whatever "facts" you need in order for your beliefs to hold, regardless of whatever real science brings to the table. What makes this dismissal any more credible than your other denials?

Quote

Clearly that should be obvious to everyone.

No, you're just once again demanding that your ignorance be equivalent to fact. Begging the question will not convince your critics here.

Quote

Are we to believe none of this regolith piles up on the top of rocks yet the bases of these rocks are buried in regolith?

With regards to regolith being like a snowfall, it is like a snowfall in that the dust particles are being disbursed evenly over the ground. All you have to do is watch one of the many films of the astronauts kicking up dust. The dust falling doesn't discriminate with the rocks and only settle around the rocks. Clearly that should be obvious to everyone. Micrometeorites hit the moon anywhere between 50000 to well over a million times a year depending on who you believe. When they hit, they hit at anywhere between 25000-100000 mph. (I sure would not want to be an astronaut getting hit ) The dust clouds from meteorites (and for that matter meteors) can be enormous as documented by NASA. Are we to believe none of this regolith piles up on the top of rocks yet the bases of these rocks are buried in regolith?

By using the example of material kicked by astronauts as an argument you are acknowledging that they were actually there to kick it up. In which case you are trolling.

But it is a false analogy, everything, from cosmic dust to asteroids and comet nuclei 10s of km across, strikes the surface at high velocity, the minimum being 2.38 km/s. Some of the cometary material at up to 40 km/s. This creates more debris, most of it also moving at significant velocities from 10s of m/s to several km/s.

Some here have used a sandblaster analogy, I prefer the use machine gun fire. Except that most of the particles are moving at least three times faster than any bullet.

There will be no dust clouds such as those would see after such an impact here.

This will be my last comment to you for two reasons: 1- until you actually accept your idea of this process is wrong we can't discuss the fascinating topic of lunar regolith, and 2 - you have some outstanding questions from other people you need to answer first.

I am utterly confused about your statements regarding the formation of Regolith. Meteors etc impacting the moon creates dust particles that are thrown up into space. Much of it then settles back on the moon. But some it remains in a permanent cloud above the moon's surface. Further, recent studies have shown a recent meteor impact on the moon created two dust clouds in the exosphere.

I am utterly confused about your statements regarding the formation of Regolith. Meteors etc impacting the moon creates dust particles that are thrown up into space. Much of it then settles back on the moon. But some it remains in a permanent cloud above the moon's surface. Further, recent studies have shown a recent meteor impact on the moon created two dust clouds in the exosphere.

These are not clouds in the sense of clouds of dust on Earth. They are particles that have been ejected from the lunar surface by impact at velocities high enough to achieve orbit. This requires a velocity of at least 1.87 km/s but less than lunar escape velocity of 2.38 km. Much of this material will end up back on the Moon but when it does it will not be a gentle snowfall. They will be moving at between 1.87 and 2.38 km/2. That's roughly two to three times the speed of a bullet.

No, it doesn't "settle." It rains back down at very high velocity, the same velocity in reverse that the particles left at, ejected by the tremendous energy of impact. If, at the moment of impact, it leaves the surface upward at 100 meters per second, it hits the ground at 100 meters per second at the end of its ballistic arc. This is basic physics. Basic physics. There's no exotic astrophysics that we have to refer to.

Some of the particles leave with such velocity that they achieve a stable orbit. As Dalhousie has explained, this is a constellation of orbiting particles, not an aerosol cloud such as we see on Earth. You seem unable to reckon the behavior of high-energy particles in the absence of an atmosphere. This is the part where you should be saying, "Gee, I guess I don't understand this as well as I thought."

This is the part where you should be saying, "Gee, I guess I don't understand this as well as I thought."

And there is nothing wrong with that - we all have things we think we know better than we actually do. Once we admit that is the case, usually in the face of contrary evidence, then it is a great opportunity to learn.

And there is nothing wrong with that - we all have things we think we know better than we actually do. Once we admit that is the case, usually in the face of contrary evidence, then it is a great opportunity to learn.

Some of the particles leave with such velocity that they achieve a stable orbit. As Dalhousie has explained, this is a constellation of orbiting particles, not an aerosol cloud such as we see on Earth. You seem unable to reckon the behavior of high-energy particles in the absence of an atmosphere. This is the part where you should be saying, "Gee, I guess I don't understand this as well as I thought."

I would say it's more akin to the paint flecks and other ultra-small space junk in orbit than jr Knowing's settling clouds. There is so much discussed on this site, especially space related, I don't understand, and, as much as I would like to understand, but, unlike jr Knowing, I have no problem admitting when I simply don't know.

This is "Why is there no dust on the footpads of the LM" all over again. Same mechamism is responsible. NO AIR ON THE MOON.

Logged

Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

I am utterly confused about your statements regarding the formation of Regolith.

Fine, but unless you acknowledge the confusion is your problem and not an indication that anything suspect is going on there is very little we can do here.

Quote

Meteors etc impacting the moon creates dust particles that are thrown up into space. Much of it then settles back on the moon.

No, it does not 'settle' it falls back at the same speed it left.

Quote

But some it remains in a permanent cloud above the moon's surface.

And if it remains in a permanent cloud then it is not settling, so is not contributing to the regolith on the surface. If it's not falling to the surface then it is either being electrostatically repelled or else moving fast enough to stay in orbit of the Moon.

Quote

Further, recent studies have shown a recent meteor impact on the moon created two dust clouds in the exosphere.

Not in dispute but not relevant to regolith on the surface either. Even if a dust 'cloud' is created this is not like any dust cloud on earth and when it does fall back to the surface it is still not a light settling that happens but a rapid impact.

Did you buy that article or are you actually attempting to use nothing more than the abstract to bolster your arguments?

Logged

"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!" - Dara O'Briain

You have no understanding of the words that you are using. Dust in a low-G vacuum does not form "clouds" that "settle".Meteors do not impact the ground and as such how would they have anything to do with the regolith?

The two articles that you quoted in another post refer to plasma clouds......why would you think that plasma has anything to do with the topic? I guess that is what happens when you have zero knowledge and have to rely on Googling "regolith and clouds".

Logged

"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Thanks Smartcooky and your Angle of Repose study. At least someone here has attempted to use some science to explain things.

No, EVERYONE here is using science to try to explain to you why you are wrong. You are refusing to listen, and substituting their science with your own flawed intuition about what might be happening.

Consider this:

On the Earth:If you take a snowflake (lets assume its cold enough not to melt) and release it from 10 kilometres above the ground, it will begin to accelerate downwards and will reach a terminal velocity of between 1 and 7 kilometres per hour, (between 0.27 and 2m/s). The terminal velocity is due to air resistance

On the Moon: If you take a snowflake and release it from 10 kilometres above the ground, it will begin to accelerate downwards and will keep accelerating downwards. There is no air on the moon, therefore no terminal velocity as such - the snowflake will continue to accelerate until it smashes into the surface at over 7,000 km/h (about 2000 m/s) - [someone please check my math]

This is why your description of regolith as being "like snowfall" is totally false.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2019, 06:09:13 AM by smartcooky »

Logged

► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Hey, jr Knowing, do you know what that faintly-orange little blob is, away in the distance to the right of the top of the rock?

It had a name: Challenger. Apollo 11's equivalent was Eagle.

What do you have to say about the regolith on Tracy's Rock which Gene Cernan disturbed with his gloved hands?

« Last Edit: April 01, 2019, 08:09:52 AM by Kiwi »

Logged

Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)